[whatwg] Table integrity and conformance
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Nov 7 16:59:38 PST 2006
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2006, at 21:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > I think cells extending (via colspan/rowspan) into columns or rows that
> > contain no cells other than extended cells should be at least a SHOULD
> > NOT, maybe a MUST NOT.
> Wouldn't it be sufficient and more desirable to require each row to have at
> least one cell that starts on that row and each column to have at least one
> cell that starts in that column? (By starts I mean having the top left corner
> This would allow tables like this:
> (Where numbers denote cells so that 11 means a cell spanning two columns.)
What's the difference?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg